Just wanted someone to clarify something once and for all. I thought I had this down but then Steve wrote this:

"I am asking that you at least acknowledge this rule has the potential to prevent some very dedicated club members from participating in a unique club event and that you at least consider a change in the future."

As I understand it, the rule prevents absolute no member of the invited clubs from participating. It merely prevents a few from scoring points. Steve, do you understand differently? Can someone tell me if I am incorrect?

As someone who has not been directly involved in Mill Cities governance, but has been on the edge of it for 10 years or so, here is my perspective on the USATF rule.

Prior to the USATF rule, a “club members only” rule existed (and still exists as far as I know). As I recall, the USATF rule did NOT come about as the result of clubs recruiting individuals “from away”, to run on their teams. At least, I never heard of such problems. Rather, the rule was created as the result of arguments and accusations about whether particular (fast) local runners were “real members” of this or that club. In other words, it was questioned whether someone who was a member of a MCR club, but always ran team events for racing teams such as CMS (or for Nike or for New Balance, etc.) was qualified to run as part of a scoring MCR club team.

The “real club members only” rule was not enforceable since there was no specific definition of “real”, and this led to arguments and bad feelings. The USATF rule was adopted (in my view) because it was specific enough to be enforceable, and it filtered out the most obvious problem runners, without being totally exclusionary. If a club member who was USATF with another club/team wanted to run for a MCR club, he/she could do so by switching their USATF club association; Dave Dunham being the example already mentioned in this thread. WCRC did not bribe or coerce Dave into switching his USATF association, Dave did so on his own because he was a WCRC member and wanted to run MCR.

In any case, if the MCR board chooses to reconsider the USATF rule for next year, in favor of a “club members only” rule, all clubs should acknowledge in advance that the rule has to be a “virtually all new and existing club members only” rule (i.e. an open Lake Winni type relay) since it will be in practice impossible to monitor or regulate “when” and/or “why” particular MCR participants join particular clubs.

 "Stacking the teams" does not ensure you the club championship. DD did not win the championship for us in 2004. HIS team finished only 3rd masters.
 Spreading the wealth among all your teams is the key. USATF or not!
 Last year's win was a upset. MVS fielded superior talent when compared to the WCRC but did not realize I guess that mixed points count the same.Time means nothing .As Gary P. said {adequate teams] all we do is encourage as much involvement as possible from our members to join in this end of year celebration,try to put them in the best positions for the club to succeed and hope for the best. We will be using the same formula this year. Good luck to all the MCR clubs at this years relay. If we can't take home the trophy this year, I look foward to applauding the club that does because I know first hand how much work that would take. Have fun and be safe JW

As a member of the WCRC I can assure fellow running clubs that we are really not the competetive force we once were. I have run every MCR since its origin and present teams pale in comparison to the past. Our latest reign can only be described as an ability to field adequate teams in all divisions.

I apparently have a greater tolerance for pain and therefore have continued beating my head against the wall longer than most. My posts are not meant to minimize the hard work of the MCR board or over-simplify the problem you all apparently believe exists. Unfortunately, how I write or how you interpret my posts (or vice versa for that matter) creates the same problem found when people send email: sometimes we all just read way more into the message than was actually intended.
I'm not looking for a rule change this year.
I'm not looking for an exception for Gate City runners or for me personally.
I'm not looking to change the MCR.
I am asking that you at least acknowledge this rule has the potential to prevent some very dedicated club members from participating in a unique club event and that you at least consider a change in the future.

I'm sure most of you don't know me from a hole in the wall...and that's actually part of my point. I don't have an agenda, an ax to grind or any bad feelings towards anybody regarding MCR. I don't even have a storied history running in this event, having only competed in 2005. In fact, up until last year I've never been part of a running club ever. But like most of you, I enjoy the camaraderie of running with my teammates, something MCR promotes and celebrates (especially at the finish!).

So, back to the rule...
Contrary to what some believe, I do understand why the rule was put into place and I also understand what 'could' happen if the rule were not in place...clubs could recruit runners from outside their member pool (ringers if you will). I get it.
What I don't get why try to regulate this via USATF membership (which as we all know by now, may provide the effect you were looking for in general, but also penalizes runners (many) who do not fall into the 'ringer' category or are recruited from outside MCR clubs).

You have a very inclusive rule already: All participants must be MEMBERS of one of the 17 MCR member clubs. Seems pretty straight forward, right?
Well nearly every time it is mentioned, I hear how 'some' clubs wouldn't necessarily follow this rule and they would recruit runners from outside their membership pool (ringers)....all in the spirit of winning. I'm told of how this happened in the past. I'm told that's part of the reason for instituting the current USATF rule.

What I'm not told is what is or was the consequence of BREAKING the members-only rule? If a rule is not enforced or if there are no penalties for breaking it, what's the point of having it to begin with? If there were a penalty for actually breaking the members-only rule (1yr ban from MCR for instance), maybe 'some' clubs would be less inclined to recruit from outside their membership pool. There needs to be a deterrent. Over regulation is not a deterrent.

Clubs should be able to recruit and field the fastest team they can from available club membership: whether that person runs with that club every day of the year or one day a year. This is supposed to be a club championship after all.
My head hurts...

Actually, I'm have been a member of the Marshfield RoadRunners since 1979. I grew up there and love the camaraderie of running with guys i went to HS with. However, since registering with USATF as GLRR, I only compete for GLRR.
A large part of this sounds sort of like the reverse of running clubs when I lived in the DC area. DCRR was an umbrella club that 90% of runners belonged to while competing for smaller clubs. DCRR put on a lot of "members only" races and held year round social events. Since everyone (except me since I was competing for the US Army) only competed for his/her "Racing Team" there was no conflict.
I am not against relooking the issue each year. As it stands now I just feel that we all have to make our decision and live with that decision.

Chip, I have no idea what you mean by 'these guys want to have their cake and eat it too!"?
1. I am one of 'these' guys. I am a member of GCS and run with my GCS teammates throughout the year, not just at MCR. However, GCS has not historically participated in USATF events, specifically in the Masters division. I had an opportunity to run on a competitive masters USATF team (Moose) and do so several times a year. I rarely, if ever score points in the masters division in USATF races though.
2. This rule does not hurt me personally. I can still run in MCR on non-scoring teams. The issue I have is I am not allowed to help my club score points, a club I support year round. So this isn't about 'these guys'.
3. You can be a follower of the 'total allegiance to one club idea', but it doesn't mean the rest of us feel the same way. Heck, you have several members of your own MCR board that are 'members' of several different running clubs.
4. I doubt you have any proof this rule actually does what it was allegedly designed to do..prevent 'ringers' (or whatever you want to call them) from joining a club just for MCR. There IS proof it hurts REAL members of MCR clubs, however. I think what alot of people have been trying to say is this rule was put in place to prevent a problem that probably doesn't even exist anymore.
In the end it's your event, and you can do what you want. You can listen to your members or you can ignore us. It's unfortunate that you fail to listen to runners (and specifically TEAMS) actually affected by this just because it doesn't affect you personally. I guess that applies to my club too since they also choose not to fight for the runners affected by this rule. I will continue to choose who I run for though, and not the MCR board.

Since the discussion is closed, this can be brought up next year. Two things that come to my attention with the USATF rule. I am a member of MRC and only them, so this does not affect me personally, but it does affect my club. We as a club are not a USATF club, but have members that run also for USATF/fellow MCR clubs. I do have an individual USATF number though so I can participate as an individual in USATF sactioned events. First, can MRC actually compete in the MCR without a USATF number (hope this does not bite my club in the ass) and two, if a runner wishes to run for us for comraderie reasons instead of their USATF club, why should those runners be restricted from doing that?

As a member of the MCR board and the grievance subcommittee, I have to chime in.
 I was adamantly against the granting of waivers last year. I believe my comment was "These guys want to have their cake and eat it, too!" Having spent several of my prime running years in Europe, I am a follower of the total allegiance to one club idea.
 I am hearing folks say running MCR is all about the camaraderie. I agree. During my 7 year retirement from racing, I always ran the relay as my annual get together with my old teammates. Joe is hitting the answer perfectly with his statement about the SRR team.

As I understand the rule, you can still RUN Mill cities if you're USATF registered with another club, but your team cannot SCORE in the relay, right? I know SRR has at least one such team specifically for reason of the rule. We're fine with this.

To me the rule seems like the best compromise out there. It *does* prevent people from lining up a few ringers for one event. Not in a foolproof way of course, but it makes it inconvenient enough that few people would bother actually switching club affiliations. Preventing that seems a worthwhile goal, particularly given the invitation-only nature of the event and the fact that scoring is done per club.

I think that "ringer" teams still would happen from time to time, even today, were the rule not in place. Not necessarily because people are "unethical" but because in some contexts such a practice is seen as normal. I think of relays like Lake Winnie where you see ringer teams all the time and it's perfectly fine. But it's not an issue there because teams at Lake Winnie do not need to be a part of ANY club.

If someone can come up with a better way to prevent this, maybe they can suggest it?

Yep, you're right. The MCR is fine just the way it is: as long as they have a rule to include 'ringers' and exclude members, who am I to judge.

Nothing like an end of season race to bring everyone together :-)

Now Steve, you heard the man, the issue is dead for 2006. But, we're more than welcome to beat our head against the same wall this time next year!

I for one will be happy just to get on with it. I'm tired of tilting at windmills and fed up with fighting a losing battle on two fronts. I'm just looking forward to finally toeing the line and letting our feet do the talking. Because, despite the exclusion of many of our key members, Gate City will be out there again this year in record numbers. And, you can be sure that win, lose, or draw GCS will continue to play by the rules and party when it's over!

And, since it's completely legal, we'd be happy to have Mr. Dunham consider jumping through bureaucratic hoops to run with us next year, or the year after. Because whether it's '96 or '06 he's still faster than most masters out there. Come on Dave, "Run for the Gate in 2008"! :)

I personally have no problem with DD running in the MCR. My rule would be simple: Runners are members of MCR-affiliated teams. Period. How often or why you run for that team is your business.
Seems to me that the 'board' has made this a bigger problem that it actually is.
A 'rule' that only affects ONE team doesn't seem like a rule that is working, IMHO.

Gee Dave, you are up earlier than me! Getting in some miles before work?

I'd like to give a passionate plea at next years MCR meeting to loosen things up.

Mike - check out my recent times. I'm DD of 2006, not DD of 1996...

Once again the rule was set up to prevent clubs (people) from stacking teams. No one here has ever said the rule was perfect, however in Dave's case he had to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order to compete for the Circle in 2004. Most, if any, runners would not make this type of commitment so the rule does work. As you know we did try a waiver policy last year and all but one of the waivers we received was from GCS. The original GCS number for waivers was over thirty, but after a closer look the list was reduced somewhat. So I hope you can understand why the committee viewed this as a GCS problem and not a Mill Cities problem. We discontinued the waiver policy this year after a unanimous vote to do so (BTW that included GCS's vote). At this point it is fair to say that as far as the Mill Cities Alliance is concerned this issue is dead for 2006. Thanks for the lively discussion. As you know our meetings are always open to anyone who wants to attend and make a proposal for change. I invite you to do so in 2007.

Wow, 5 replies in less than 20 minutes! Seems like I touched a nerve ;)

Look guys, my intention was not to cast Dave in a bad light. I think he's a great guy and he has, on more than one occasion, taken the time to cheerfully respond to my e-mail questions regarding Mount Washington and The Mountain Series. Dave's running resume is legend and his contributions to the New England running scene is immeasurable. In fact, I was the one who recommended to the Gate City E-board that Dave be invited to one of our Club meetings as a guest speaker and I'm glad he accepted.

My intention was also not to suggest that Dave broke the rules. The circumstances which allowed Dave to participate in Mill Cities for WCRC were definitely within the guidelines as laid down by the MCR rules committee. But, I have been told ad-nauseum that the reason for the USATF affiliation rule is to prevent clubs from bringing in "ringers" and ruining the "integrity of the event". Well, if Dave Dunham (3-time Mount Washington Champ) not the very definition of a "ringer", then I don't know what one is!

My intention was to point out the hypocrisy at work here. Even though what occured with Dave was within the rules, no one from the MCR committee can look me in the eye and tell me it was "right". Dave runs all year for CMS but is eligible for MCR because he changed his affiliation for just one race. And, you can be sure that no one asked him to change it for the Toy Trot or Trav's Trail run! But, I have runners who run all year for GCS, organize our events, serve on our committees, volunteer at our races, and score points for us at the NHGP, who are ineligible because they ran one race (Mount Washington) for another USATF club. It just doesn't make sense.

As far as Dave volunteering to check the club status is concerned, I just thought it was funny that he be the one to do it. That's all. I'm sure he'll do a fair and thorough job (although I'll decline the invitation to assist). I just wish we could rely on clubs to police themselves in the "Camaraderie" of what's fair and just.

Oh, and one more thing. If you're not a "fox", what's with the tail? :p